pioneer

That is part of the problem I see. If someone misquoted the distance to the sun, there would be someone to correct it. If we misuse statistics for fun and profit, there is nobody correcting the record to keep it honest. Those knowledgeable in these areas have an immunity but they don't try to pass that on. It may be something simple like conflict of interest. Even if this is being misused it still creates jobs in the field. One area that is really abused is polling. Each team gets their experts to run the data they need to get the result that they want. It a lot of it has to do with spin. That is why it is not uncommon to have it both ways. These, results in turn, can change day to day. The impression I often get is that it is being used to stir the herd with the power of suggestion, but using the label of scientific so it appears like science.. It could also be used by the media to estimate how effectively they are manipulating their target audience. The goal is see if their impact is shifting the direction of the herd. I am not down on the actual math when used in the hands of the expert, but there is no other math that can be used as well for manipulation.

Technically you are correct, so I stand corrected. Regardless, since the interaction of the electrons and the protons is what makes atoms, and since electrons form orbital shapes, one would expect some type of reinforcing reciprocity between the electrons and protons. It is not easy to tell which comes first, the chicken (electron) or the egg (proton). But one set of shapes should help the other set the shapes of the other set, since the force fields have a direct connection to other. For example, magnetic iron has its outer electrons with the same spin. With inert iron, the electron energy is lower because there is opposite spin canceling out the magnetic. Do these each have a separate nuclear type state to reinforce the stability? This might explain how magnetic iron can be theoretically sustained in the center of the earth above the known magnetic temperature on the surface. This might imply a nuclear shape makes it possible that is stable at that temp. On the surface maybe it is the chicken before the egg, but in the core, maybe the egg comes before the chicken.

Doesn't Einstein's second postulate suggest a constant zero reference where light is created by matter. Regardless of the moving reference, light touches bases with that zero reference allowing it to propagate consistently, ignoring finite reference. This sort of suggests a paradox of extremes, with two constants, i.e., 0,C. Matter stays >0 and <C, relative to this absolute reference scale. Since that time, haven't more equations, based on virtual probability, which were not included in Einstein's knowledge of mechanics, been added. The mechanics of his day were more based on math logic. But with statistics there is no probability of 1, which is what logic needs to function properly. One can reason only if x=y. If it doesn't, according to statistics, after so many logic steps, it predicts logic will break down. How many pages of logic before it is chaos? These two approaches are mutually exclusive since reasoning with less than 1, makes all logical extrapolations increasingly fuzzy with compounding error subject to the laws of chaos. The question is, do the probability laws become subject to increasing chaos depending on the reference? I can see relativistic mass increasing. This is sort of virtual and not particle tangible, since it doesn't remain after we take away velocity. Does more of it increasingly become affected by chaos. Or does even random and chaos follow a smooth curve? Einstein didn't have worry about this because it was added later, without checking to see if this contradicts or whether even chaos follows a smooth curve, sort of contradicting itself.

Part of the irony is the nuclei are rather large compared to some of the substructures we know a lot about. We have more confidence in the tiny. It is like saying the elephant is highly questionable but we can see the fleas. I am not trying to be difficult, but I look for conceptual consistency. If we know the fleas, we should be able to reverse engineer and know, with confidence, at least where elephant's ears and neck are since that is where the fleas like to go. Call me old fashion, but I would have to assume, if one does not know how the nuclei are arranged, one doesn't know how substructure relates when confronted with other substructure in a real world situation. That should be important for telling us would tell how positive charge and the nuclear forces interact at macro-distance using the models of sub-structure. This, in turn, should be needed for any reality model of force interaction. All we may know is how the sub-structure interacts in particle accelerators, with nuclei a real life practical test application, to see if theory extrapolates. There should be a push in physics to define the nucleus and then back check the detailed theory to make sure models accommodate these fundamental natural observations like shape. It may be a good litmus test. That would be the approach I would take. As long as the elephant is questionable, we can have the fleas floating in thin air and assume that is just the way fleas are. At that point, we can debate all the possible ways fleas can float in the air because there is no basic reality check. Maybe I am being too logical for the practical needs of abstract math art. Abstract art works better when there are no tangible reality boundaries. This may explain why this reality interface has been avoided or by-passed. The fear could be, knowing could actually be worse, than not knowing. The nuclei represent the interface with chemistry, where the diversity of theoretical abstract math art gets pinched and has to change more into unified reality art that has to work in the real world.

Addendum Statistics is a powerful math tool. Chaos is one of its performance parameters that allow it to work. The parameters of the tool does not mean this is how reality is, only how the tool needs to view reality to work properly. it sort of like driving at car that can go 120 mph and then assuming all cars have this same speed parameter. If one only drives that car, and never tries another, this assumption can start to look like it is reality. If others start to believe that limit is true, they may never try to exceed 120 mph, since that is now the established limit. If that is the limit then we only build car with that limit; the loop closes until the line between cause and affect becomes a vague memory. I am trying to walk down the middle since statistics is a very powerful tool. But I am also trying to show how chaos is part of the technique, and can be used to manipulate reason. The reason we use would prefer to use statistics, in the first choice, is when systems get too complicated for reason. That is why it is used in medicine so much. Since the system is too complicated for reason, we need to work under the parameters of the tool, such that anything is possible, since there is no reason, it is not. Based on that assumption we let the data and the math give us a correlation. This is totally valid and very practical with plenty of very useful results. But what we have seem to have forgotten is this approach was needed when reason started to break down due to increasing complexity and that it started out its young life as a rational approximation to help reason. It was very ingenious allowing science and production to move forward. The wide range of success has sort of created the situation where the reasonable is being taken over by the approximation. Even if x=y, we now need to assume chaos, as part of the reasoning, to make it an even more complicated system. Chaos is not needed at this low level of rational complexity, but its value for complex systems seems to logically imply it can do the easy ones, too, even better. There is less incentive to reason in areas of science, but to let chaos do it for you. Here is an analogy. The workers are tilling the soil of science. The come to this huge bolder in the field. All the humans can't lift it, so we call in the backhoe. The backhoes picks it up, with reasonable dexterity, and places it where we need it to be. Soon, since the backhoes can do what no human can do, maybe it is also better at reasonable tasks like picking up the pebbles and rocks There is always going to be greater uncertainty in backhoe placement of the object. The backhoes can get a lot closer with the boulder since the percentage is smaller. The pebble has huge placement uncertainty as a percentage. If we assume the placement uncertainty of the backhoe is the new standard even for pebbles, then the power of reason seems off, since it can place the pebble in the bull eyes. This is not suppose to happen, using the backhoe and chaos. So what happens next, humans with the pebbles and rocks begin to reason from a distance, so that can toss the rocks to meet the prescribed uncertainty. There is no reason to hit the bulls eye. If I hit the outer ring and add a couple of quickie chaos's, it will now considered a bulls eye. This will reach the lay person like it is based on a rational bull's eye. Reason has a certainty of 1 which is not possible with chaos . So in chaos rules, it is impossible to reason, since it assumes 1.

I am not trying to undermine the practical usefulness of statistics, when used properly by a trained mathematician. But from the practical point of view of the lay person, a statistical approach can get irrational, since it can be used to manipulate a reasonable lay person. Let me give an example. Say eating X, doubles the risk of a person getting condition Y. The math expert has a good handle on this in terms of the hard numbers. It can tell the difference between going from 1 to 2 in a million and 100-1000 in a million. But the layperson is pitched "double the risk", for the 1 to 2 in a million. They are not experts so they then depend on others to interpret this danger. If I want to sell product Z, that halves the risk, I am not going to be clear about what this all means. I am better off pitching risk angle, where competitor X is double, which is really terrible. I will market myself offering the customer half risk. The math expert will see no real difference between the products. But the housewife is now going to buy brand Z with the irrational fantasy she just saved her family. With reason one can not successfully create the same impact. There is truth in advertising that does not allow one to say x=y, if x=z. But with statistics we can get around this by providing a mathematical truth that is misleading. The double the risk is indeed true. I just have to my pitch product in a way were I don't technically violate reason. The math expert will see the game, but how many experts are there? Why is there no voice of reason sounding out? One possibility, is the experts are also living in a world that is not fully rational, because it assumes a world of chaos with odds allowing almost anything. The misleading pitch fits into this chaos, since there are the odds they are telling the truth. Is it possible that chaos is an pre-reason affect and not a rational cause? In other words, if x=y, but we don't know this, then doesn't than mean that anything is possible, with some things more possible than others. With that assumption then x can never exactly equal y, or it can never reach reason, with the slight difference equal to the laws of chaos. The math expert can see the proper interpretation of the applications but can it see the possibility of a pre-rational cause and affect, mix-up. It is the chicken or the egg. Once you decide, there are two paths that work. One may put cause before affect and be able to reason since it will follow from there. The other may have to put the affect (chaos) before the cause. Or chaos will affect cause so it can lead to statistical type affect, which lead to further chaos.

Choosing the baby's sex is connected to human vanity, the constraints of social peer pressure, or free market enticement, none of which are natural selection. This choice does not guarantee any form of human induced natural progression, analogous to picking certain food plants to improve the overall species. The choice is really for the parents and for the free market. The analogy is sort of like having to choose between two food plants, for forward breeding. One decides to choose the one with prettier flowers because your neighbors will think more of you and you get to enjoy the flowers. The choice stems from an imaginary fantasy projection. It may reflect the limitations of the parents, with them better able to pass this on. There is no genetic logic that suggest this is the best choice in terms of evolution. I would think nature, who has been making these choices for eons, may have its own logic worked out. If you wish to go green, one can't chose the unnatural even if science is able to allow synthetic. This is part of the liberal irrationality. Don't genetically mess with our food but we will allow you genetically alter our children One possible spin-off, since this science is empirical, is the only thing that is fully genetically altered is the physical sex. I am not passing judgement, but if we don't also alter all the genes, including those relative to psychological sex, we may start to create an artificial shift toward gayness. It is sort of placing a Ford Mustang body on a Chevy chassis and drive train. To make it a full Ford Mustang, one may have to do more genetic tweaking than just a body change. Maybe there needs to be a study to see if the Mustang bodies on the Chevy chassis and drive train, makes this a mustang, a chevy or both. Maybe we are unknowingly evolving the beginning of human hermaphrodites eventually able to self pro-create. The ball is in science's court, so it can help dispel this reasonable genetic concern. It may be sort of cool, but then genetics gets stuck and goes backwards. Let me give a reasonable scenario of putting the mustang body on the chevy. Females have this gift of natural maternal instincts. So we turn a boy into a girl, physically, but don't also include this brain software, we may start to get females who lose parts of their maternal instincts. So science needs to come up with another mop or two to clean up the mess. This is perfect for the free market since it creates mop jobs.

We forget that farming is a lot of work, especially with extremely low tech tools. One is standing in the sun, tilling, weeding, fighting off the herds and pre-humans who wish to graze, etc., with the payoff well into the future. It would be like trying to get a child to do it. One would need to use some type of peer pressure, since they may prefer to run, play in the fields and eat when it is done. One can say, the task masters forced them. If we go the task master approach, where is their motivation coming from, that allows them to also stand in the sunny field and force teach day after day to a group of pre-human students who really don't wish be there. The pre-human workers want to nap under the tree, like their apes ancestors. Something had to change to get the machine primed from at least one angle. One explanation is humans suddenly developed an abstract appreciation for the long term advantage, giving them motivation. This would have to start within somebody, since there is no school yet to teach the needed motivation. The pre-humans were still on summer break and then suddenly, civilization gets the pumped primed and the machine is up and running. Here is a loose analogy of what had to happen. Let us take a bunch of college students from a big city with little farming experience. We give them a good track of fertile land near a river, but no tools, seeds or instruction. This is actually an easier starting point than the pre-humans. What they need to do is form an agriculture. They still need to eat so gathering off the land may be needed for survival. But who decides who has to stand in the sun all day or who is going to volunteer to look after the mutant looking plants since they don't yet know the best requirements? We often assume tractors grow on trees and the farm sort of works itself. The food magically appear wrapped and ready for eating. The motivation may not have been survival, since this is easier to satisfy with fish, animals, and gathered foods. Maybe a $million prize would give the needed motivation. One gets to fantasize on that prize to keep them all working when the inertial says, lets party. It would almost suggest the imagination began to gain a greater sense of structure. It was no longer free association imagination that ebbs and flows, where today we work, tomorrow we will play in the river, while our mutant looking plants dry up in the hot sun. We compare that to the lush natural and it all seems rather pointless. Why not just fish, gather and play. Someone has to stay motivated with the final goal in mind to keep the students working. Or all need to have a similar goal and motivation. Or it can be where everyone takes turns motivating.

I always come back to kittens. Say we take a kitten from the mother and all its siblings at 4-6 weeks. It is too young and too immature to have obtained much in the way of external programming. We can then raise it with children and dogs, so its input data is different, but it still comes out as a cat, with only slight quirk tweaks. In fact, a kitten will project imaginary play games to develop its hunting skills. When it is an adult, it is self taught, based on innate brain programming. It does allow for variety. Humans would do the same thing defaulting to base parameters. Social "pressure", combined with the flexibility of learning, allows humans to come out in other ways. The goal is the reduce this pressure by taking a socially designed path of least resistance to the pressures of culture. Without this pressure, there is still an internal pressure, but to take a pre-programmed path of least resistance. Cats are independent and don't fully give in to the peer pressure of the environment. Dogs form a closer rapport with humans and they will give into the human peer pressure and try to be what the master wants. I remember my sister has a small dog and a bunch of cats. The puppy learned how the use the litter box by watching the cats, with one of the cats adopting it like a kitten. Humans, are monkey see monkey do, so we can shift in any direction. The pressure of internal and external will tend to favor whatever pressure is greater. For example, one may have natural artistic talents. That is the natural. But it is hard to make a living this way. That is the social pressure. So one becomes an accountant with the natural a hobby. One would need to remove the social pressure variable to show the balloon is not floating in that direction all by itself. There is a social wind pushing it away from natural propensities. If we treat it like it is one variable, then the results always come out the way culture expects. Coming back to the religious training of 10,000 years, the balloon has floated in that direction so long one might expect some hard wire changes in behavior. But there is a new wind in town, that is blowing in the opposite direction and will eventually set up its own hardwiring changes in the human brain. It is sort of the battle for the herd's direction. But without the push it will default to what has been programmed into it, for the longest time span. The cows will come home at night, on their own, unless we force the herd to stay in the field. Eventually they will learn to stay there at night. But it takes time. I am not passing judgement, but the longest term conditioning eventually sticks for windless inertia.

I was trying to stay in the spirit of genetics. But other options are possible. I was leaving it wide open for discussion. The farming is actually one of the important changes but in a subtle way that may not be obvious. Farming was more than a new way to generate food. What it represented was a new brain ability. The ability to control instinct and put off immediate instinctive gratification. Look at this way. If the pre-humans were hungry they would gather, hunt, fish, steal, or maybe make use the dumb herd animals for food, allowing a quick method to satisfy hunger. They were very good at it. With farming it is more like lets plants some seeds and dinner should be ready in about 4-6 months, with no guarantee the plants will make it that long. The pre-humans may have had the smarts to do it, but were not be able to check the natural impulse to take the well traveled path, since it was very efficient, natural and quick. Humans suddenly changed in a way that allowed a new ability to control instinct, overcome previous evolutionary inertia, semi-abstractly look into the future, for the bigger payoff. The brain somehow evolved or receive a new boost beyond instinctive inertia. Instead of living in the here and now, like their predecessors, they were still partially doing that, but now also starting to live semi-abstractly in the future. It wasn't long before this abstract ability began to develop math, alphabets, new construction techniques, science, medicine, art, commerce, etc. It was the beginning of humans away from the slow path of pre-humans.

Here is a related evolutionary question. What changed or evolved within humans, about 10,000 years ago, which allowed the formation of civilization. Civilization is much more advanced than living in cave or wandering with the animals. It appears to have happened very fast relative to normal evolutionary time scales. The next related question is, did happen with a single or limited genetic mutation, i.e.. Adam-X, or did it happen in wholesale quantities all at the same time? Say we were to draw a curve of advancement versus time. We start back say 2 million years. The curve starts almost flat with a slight upward slope. Around 10,000 years ago, more or less, the curvature changes drastically with the slope shooting up. It doesn't follow the same slope as before if we extended the rate of evolutionary process that has been. The old slope may be more in line with evolutionary predictions. Where the curvature begins to jump, this marked a turning point for humans. What was the change?

Years ago, maybe 20 years ago, I developed a theory called dimensional decompression. The gist of it was taking single spheres starting at closest packing, and fluffing them out to add more gap percentage. I started with single spheres with 8-12 neighbors. The next is two spheres stuck together which allows hexagonal packing of six neighbors. Then we have three spheres stuck together in a triangle, then four which would become the tetrahedron unit. Eventually, one will get a tetrahedron of tetrahedrons. Each adds more gap percentage to the closest possible packing. The original idea was based on the compression of matter, with the conclusion the smallest nuclei are able to pack tighter than larger nuclei since the final state is single spheres and neutron density. The larger atoms have more built in nuclear gaps, even when closest packed. The other conclusion was if we compressed large nuclei, to reduce the gap percentage, they would will disintegrate into smaller atoms for better packing, removing the nuclear engrained gaps. The chemistry has caught up. There were other implications that most people didn't like. It placed the formation of higher atoms further from the center, where the dimensional decompression favored adding the gaps found in higher nuclei. Forming helium from T or D, over H, was more favorable at extreme pressure because their dimensional packing was closer to the helium tetrahedron. We needed only enough energy to fluff the T triangle grid so the tetrahedron He formed. I got carried away with atomic recycle due to compressional flow and convection. The idea was to add another layer of extreme pressure dynamics to make it easier to form atoms, rather than assuming just heat and random collisions. Use pressure for nuclear prefab. I could never agree with iron sinking to the solar core since it was too dimensional fluffy and would need to disintegrate to be there. It made more sense to have an iron shell encasing the core in its own place within the dimensional grid. It is still fluffy enough for H diffusion. It it gets too thick, one see sun spots and cracks for pressure release as solar flares.

I understand how the math works and I believe the results of the equations are correct. But one thing has always bothered me, is connected to the conservation of energy. The center of a mass has no gravity, yet it is often the hottest part of a sphere, like the sun. This is due to the gravitational work causing things to heat up. The paradox that arises is there is no gravity at the center, yet the most energy, as heat, coming gravity is coming from where there is no gravity. One possible way to explain it is, the zero gravity at the center is due to vector addition of all the gravity force vectors in the mass. But the heat is connected to the scaler of the force of gravity, acting on surface area to create pressure and work. This will only make heat, if at least some of the vectors cancel so there are at some pure scaler components. The force acting in one direction gives motion. If we oppose motion with some vector canceling to get scalers we get heat. This sort of makes sense since force is vector or directional. If we retain the guts of the force but get rid of it sense of direction, through vector canceling, the force becomes zero and it converts to energy. The center of gravity has lost all its force vectors, so all it can do is make heat. That makes the force vector the middle man between force and energy. Vector and force makes motion, while force with no vector makes energy. We need to go one more step. Vector is a sense of direction. It is what allows a force to act in space-time. If it loses its sense of direction it appear to default back to the C reference by converting to energy. Does that make force energy with a sense of direction?

If we look at an example, such as reading, up to the last hundred years, or so, most people did very little reading. Now there are children who can read at a very young age. Electronics are even more compressed for change. I have seen small children take to cell phones and computers, and self learn, better than older adults. With religion one is talking 10,000 years of repetition, with each generation taking to it easier until it finally becomes engrained. For example, fairy tales and children go hand in hand being one of the easiest ways to teach a small child skills. Their brain makes this path, the path of least resistance. It is not even resistance since most children crave it. If we try to teach them reason, one has to fight against inertia, since reason has only been broadly conditioned for 100-500 years. It is my theory that whatever comes most natural to children is natural. They lack the will to push into areas that may not be a natural part of them unless they naturally copy. At that point, there could be confusion between natural and conditioned. One can look in terms of biology. Crawling is the easiest with even small children learning to do this without much help. Humans did not always walk upright, so traces of that may still be in the brain's genetics. Then walking and then running are next, which are activities almost everyone can do. Advance movement, maybe beyond simple dance, takes more will power, since this is not fully defined within the genetics, at this, for most most humans. An experiment for the brain, which may never happen, is to withhold forced conditioning such as education and see what are the natural limits that humans pick up. This would sort of give up a hint on how the genetic layering is set up. Whether reason is part of genetics or whether it is still being evolved with conditioning would be interesting to see. I don't mean that in a negative way, but natural reasonable skills may imply very fast genetic transfer.

Here is my take on this. All the dynamic components within cells work because of hydrogen bonding. This defines the secondary and tertiary structures of all the macro-molecules that makes everything possible, from enzymes, to the DNA double helix, to the chromosomes. That being said, the chromosomes define a certain configurational potential or their composition plus their shape is sort of block of potential at the level of the hydrogen bonding. When the female gamete cell forms it is using a species dependant DNA, with the bulk ovum, a type of extended configuration that is in hydrogen bonding equilibrium with that DNA. When we add male DNA, the ovum's bulk grid and the combined DNA need to form a close equilibrium configurational match. The gene shuffling is heading toward equilibrium. It falls short, slightly, so there is potential to keep moving toward equilibrium. If the final shuffle is out of whack, it can't the get going because the DNA and cytoplasm are just too far out of configurational equilibrium. What this suggests is one should be able to combine odd species, but one would need to add DNA configurational binder to compensate for non-equilibrium. This is easier said than done, without knowing how to configure.

Instead of at rest, I was looking at the dynamic situation of the ionization just happening before there is time to find an equilibrium. I picture the heavy proton sort of lumbering with the electron exiting in faster motion. If the proton ends up with more spin that could compensate, but I seems we would have the same inertia problem, with angular momentum still lagging due to its lumbering mass. I can see maybe the kinetic energy being equal but with higher mass we have less velocity and therefore less magnetic contribution. The energy would have to go into the mass. The photon EM split appears asymmetric. In we assume symmetric, part of the EM would need into mass. If you look at a proton, one thing I always thought interesting, is it is able to get involved in all the forces of nature, at the same time, in its day to day life, as part of higher atoms. It uses the EM forces, nuclear forces and gravity. In that respect, it is the poster child for unified force. That being said, is it possible part the photon's energy gets caught up in the unified force, allowing the needed redistribution. This makes sense if we reverse the ionization. Even with the photon split between the electron and proton, and even with the proton maybe having to use other forces to stores its share of possible symmetry, the system is able to synthesis only one photon out of all this possible force diversity. My gut says one needs some type of integrator that can bring any diverse force potential together into one particle. The proton may be the go to guy able to do integrate force under a very wide range of photon energies. It just shifts the unified force around to use what forces are needed. My gut also tells me that positive charge has something extra. I can't put my finger on it but simple observations appear that are not obvious using the assumption of equal-opposite charge. These appear using the other assumption.

In the animal world, animal behavior can be attributed to genetics. The question I have is, since humans have been practicing various forms of religion for at least 10,000 years and since for most of history, this training has been an all day event through both choice and forced social conformity, has this caused religious based genetics to be engrained within humans? For example, the domestication of animals during that same time period has led to basic changes in animal behavior that now appear to be engrained in their genetics. Is the human version of this domestication, due to religion, also engrained in modern human genetics?

When a virus is outside a cell it is dead. What makes it come alive in the cell is equilibrium hydrogen bonding. When the virus enters the cell, it separates into pieces. The DNA goes here, this enzyme goes there, the protective coat may go into the recycle bin, etc. These pieces are not intelligent. They are simply moving toward an equilibrium place in the grid. Once everything is in place, with the leg over here and the arm over there, it appears to come to life, working in a very integrated way The arms and the legs are all tweaking the same grid, so they can coordinate from a distance and create the impression they are alive, in spite of being part solid and part hydrogen grid ghost (not a ghost but gaps that connect). But eventually all the pieces come back together so it can die again and leave the cell. It is a strange life-form, dead when together, but alive when all in pieces. But this is simply due to the spreading out allowing it to use the cell's hydrogen grid to make the necessary hydrogen bonding tweaks, so it can come alive like a disjointed puppet, but with all parts on strings that are wired into the same control device. The virus is weird. It sort of like if a human were dead. Then someone cuts off you arms, legs and head and you come alive. One arm is chopping onions. The other arm is feeding the head the soup to see if it needs more salt. One leg is rocking the baby in baby's room, the other leg is tapping to the beat of the music in the spare room, while the torso is napping in the sofa. Progress is being made toward dinner. This would seem alive, but really weird. Someone tries to help this weird person by re-attaching the limbs and head to the torso, and it dies. The cell discards all the dead attached carcasses but it leaves the disjointed life in place.

Say we start our clock, now. To measure time, until later, we need to use energy. If we run out of energy, the clock will stop, somewhere between the old now (then) and the new, now. The clock can't keep up with the flow of time we are trying to measure, unless we add energy to it. Distance doesn't work this way. Rulers do not need a power source to measure from here to there. The observer is a wash for these two experiments. Only time needs energy to be measured because it has a connection to energy. The connection is in the timed spin we call the frequency. Without adding these little time quanta to the clock, we not can create the changes in state in the clock needed to measure the changes in state from now until then. The energy allows us to compare changes of state and then normalize it. If our clock is not keeping good time, due to low battery, we can't successfully normalize time. Try to measure time with a ruler. It will be like the joke; taking a ruler to bed to see how long you slept. But if we use an energy powered ruler such as a laser ruler, we can measure time in terms of motion. But this only works because we have a power supply.

We start with a hydrogen atom and add only one photon. This photon is energetic enough to add the 13.6 EV needed to make the electron and proton act as separate entities. If we look at charge potential, both are the same. If we look at magnetic potential, the heavy mass of the proton circumvents the same final velocity of its charge. This implies the electron gets extra due to its total EM contribution being higher by default. The split of the photon's energy can't, by default, separate into two equal EM potentials. This analysis works under the 19th century assumption that negative and positive charge are equal and opposite. If equal and opposite the photon split is asymmetric. On the other hand, if we assume a symmetric split of the photon, the proton's half, since it can't go into magnetic, by default, it has to go somewhere else. Or the positive charge has a way to tuck it away into the mass of the proton. Maybe this implies a connection to gravity. Gravity-mass was a guess but it is not too far fetched. If we compresses a bunch of hydrogen atoms with gravity, the protons get closer and electron ionize. If we assume equal split of the photons for the ionization, the protons add it to the mass at the same time gravity also increases. But again, it may be the precursor of the nuclear forces since the final goal could be fusion.

One has to try to place Einstein in the context of history. The need to develop the atomic bomb, with the fate of the world hanging on a thread, shifted the direction of physics from pure science to the needs of military applied science. Particle accelerators were part of that push. The atom smasher was going to make the perfect weapon being more focused causing less bulk damage. This shifted physics into another direction away from the more common sense fundamentals of pure peacetime science. This is why Einstein could not complete his goal. Physics was trying to back calculate pure physics from applied or manufacturing physics, instead of the other way around. This can defy common sense adding new parameters that still, to this day, make the unification of force tough to close. The problem has to do with math illusions being used to generate synthetic parameters more appropriate for the production area. Let me explain this with an example. There is an abstract artist called Escher who did an abstraction called the stairway to nowhere, ironically, about this time. It is a picture of a staircase that always appear to go up even though it is a loop that closes on itself. This can not exist in the real world but can on the canvas. One way to express math it to plot it on a graph. Escher essentially plotted some trick math on a 2-D canvas. If we could translate his stairway to nowhere plot into a set of integrated math equations, one would have a math expression for an illusion. This will defy common sense, but since the math adds up it may become a cornerstone of physics. Escher's math plot abstraction should have raised a red flag, since it was timely, in terms of the divergence of physics that was just beginning. Using math conclusions that can defy common sense, physics began to build new wings in all directions. Einstein was not sure how to get along in the sandbox, building sand castles along with the other physicists, using these new assumptions. He was trying to play nice, where the rules allow one to defy common sense with math. But doing so he lost that unique common sense that had allowed some of his earlier inventions. I don't blame Einstein, since he appeared to be too nice of a guy to slap some common sense into the military applications physics. They had the money. From the point of view of practical science, the new way was the way to go, since practical results are the goal, regardless of how you get there. If spitting into the vat makes it work better, then do that because practical results were needed, yesterday. Although the spit is needed for the practical requirements of production, it may not be natural. Maybe mother nature doesn't spit into the vat, but she will have to, after this, because we need that vat even better, tomorrow. Einstein, trying to play nice, tried to get mother nature to spit, but she wouldn't. Physics needs to discuss the Escher plot of a trick math. I am not saying we need to do away with production abstractions since they are needed on the manufacturing floor. But we need to bud off a branch of pure physics with the requirement no math tricks are allowed. One would have to go back to before the divergence, when all of physics was on the same page and start from there being careful we are not adding production tricks.

I presented this in another topic but seems appropriate to this discussion. There is an aspect of classical gravity that GR can't explain. If I was to lift a bolder, on the surface of the earth, and place a block of foam under it, the foam will flatten. There will be a physical compression of the atomic spacing in the foam due to weight=>gravity. But the change in local GR space-time is too small to account for this. GR is missing something. If we return to the black hole, the GR contribution seems perfect. But this additional classical feature of gravity may also be contributing something. There appears to be a simple GR fix, that allows GR to accommodate this. But it require a fundamental change from space-time contraction to space-time expansion. Although GR is caused by mass, only space-time is directly being affected. To explain this, we start with a 3-D mass that is contained in a coordinate system from (0,0,0) to (1,1,1). If we only expand space-time to (2,2,2) but leave the mass contained by (1,1,1) the mass is now more compressed relative to the expanded coordinate system. The coordinate system goes further into space-time like gravity does. From our reference we see the mass appear to attract and get squished by gravity. If we contract space-time to (0.5,0.5,0.5) with the classical mass still at (1,1,1) now the mass has expanded relative to the coordinate system. This is what is described by SR, but not GR. In SR one sees themselves or their mass appearing to extend further into space in their reference. There is no squishing affecting going on where we compress physically like the foam. We appear to become more inflated within space-time. To test the space-time expansion assumption for GR, one would expect that time will speed up since the time scale will also expand. In the center of stars the average event is nuclear which are the fastest. The gravitational work generates heat, which allows everything to speed up. We don't get a time dilation affect within the largest stars, slowing their average nuke burn relative to small stars. Their burn time speeds up even more, in the opposite direction of time dilation. They have more time expansion so more changes of state happen per sec.

A hallucination is a dream we have when we are awake. Both come from the unconscious mind and both trigger the sensory parts of the brain internally instead of externally. In other words, light enters the eyes and impinges on the brain to create an awareness of the stimulus. The hallucination skips the eyes and goes right to the part of the brain the eyes also uses. The result is one can see the dog wearing a hat. The dog part enters via the eyes and hat part is added internally, for laughs. One way to induce an hallucination is to go to a magic show. Your eyes will see what may not seen possible. What the magician is trying to do is limit the sensory input data, with smoke and mirrors, so the impossible seems to be possible. Where the hallucination comes in is the person who sees part of the trick in their imagination, which is not technically entering the eyes. This is a good hallucination which allows one to figure out the trick. One may have to back reason to avoid the stigma of having an hallucination. In this case, the ones who are have these hallucination are the only one seeing reality. This is why philosophers often struggle with, "what is reality". They are aware of the internal extra, which many people collectively hallucinate. But if everyone is on the same page it is called reality. That type of collective hallucination is treated differently than if only one person is doing it solo. These are the same, but solo could spoil intellectual magic tricks if the word got out that internal is adding to external.

The reason for this proliferation is atheists have a hole inside. There is a push to help fill in that hole since they are looking for something to help fill it in. Dawkin's theory of meme comes to play here. The atheist appear more vulnerable to the latest memes, always looking for and trying to participate and propagate the latest virus. The free market has noticed this and has realized they can crank out the meme and the atheist can't get enough. The hole inside must be fairly large. The compounded problem is, the meme fads wear out, causing the hole to keep coming back, needing a fresh batch of the latest meme. It sort of remains one of a black hole, sucking the life out of meme-fads always ready for another batch. The religious have memes that don't t seem to fade as quickly. Either their black hole is smaller or their meme contains more potential, taking much longer to suck the life out of, until they need their own new batch. One way to understand the hole, is although atheism is a valid approach, they forget one key thing they should know from science. Humans have used religion since the beginning of civilization. It is very possible that much repetition has caused genetic engraining. This is why any small child will often take to fairy stories like a duck to water. An analogy is the brain has this extra genetic based arm trained for over 10,000 years. It does not just go away anymore than any other genetic trait, using will power. That arm is the hole still seeking the same type of thing it has been conditioned to do for 10,000 years. The stuff we give to it, seems to work, but soon fades, as the inner arm tosses it aside. It continues to reach and grasp hoping to find the right glove. It makes one vulnerable to meme fad. Maybe 1000 years of atheism will change it, but this movement is new and still has to come to terms with the old genetic arm.

Absolute zero implies no temperature or no energy. Due to the mass-energy equivalence there can not be any matter either. The perfect vacuum without energy can reach absolute zero. This suggests that matter disappears at absolute zero, since it presence will not allow a perfect vacuum. It loosely suggests that the center of a black hole may be at absolute zero since that temperature requirement would also preclude matter-energy. Look at the black hole this way. Gravity is putting the squeeze on matter to ring out all the energy that is contained in it. The energy can't escape but also gets rung out. Infinite wavelength energy forms at the event horizon but this is not technically energy. The product of wavelength and frequency needs to multiple to C. One can't get C with by multiply anything by infinity. That is a by-product of absolute zero since it is neither matter or energy and therefore has no impact on the temperature scale.